Liches and their phylacerties.
Chris Simpson
zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Okay, so a lich is an undead sorcerer with access to levels 1-9 of
> Wizard spells, right? With those capabilites and 11 Hit Dice, a lich
> has to be pretty damn tough, and best avoided if at all possible. And
> as if that wasn't bad enough, they keep their life forces in a phlacerty
> which you have to destroy in order to take out the lich for good.
>
> So I have two questions.
>
> 1. What happens if you find a lich, kill it, and utterly annihilate the
> body (leaving nothing but a smoldering pile of dust), but don't destroy
> the phylacerty?
>
>
Well I guess the PCs are going to have a problem if the lich can get another
body.
> 2. What happens if you destroy the lich's phylacerty, but don't destroy
> (or even fight) the actual lich?
>
The lich would drop dead (so to speek).
Chris Simpson
Tom Foster wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a phylactery. I've read the MM and
> the dictionary and just cannot figure it out.
>
Is where they keep there life force.
zarc...@my-deja.com
Wizard spells, right? With those capabilites and 11 Hit Dice, a lich
has to be pretty damn tough, and best avoided if at all possible. And
as if that wasn't bad enough, they keep their life forces in a phlacerty
which you have to destroy in order to take out the lich for good.
So I have two questions.
1. What happens if you find a lich, kill it, and utterly annihilate the
body (leaving nothing but a smoldering pile of dust), but don't destroy
the phylacerty?
2. What happens if you destroy the lich's phylacerty, but don't destroy
(or even fight) the actual lich?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lost Dragon
>(or even fight) the actual lich?
In addition to those questions...
Why is no mention ever made of the Phylactery of Vecna? He was the
original liche, right? Sounds like good campaign seed material to me.
Heh.. Don't like the way Die Vecna Die ended? I'll bet the Lady of
Pain would just love to have Vecna's Phylactery..
/| .oo__. A .---.=- -= Lost Dragon =- -=.---. U
{ \| ,-'' L |_O_|==- -= Forever Dead Forgotten Lie =- -==|_O_| D
`,_/'(_)\_ I | | |==- Remembered Souls, They Cannot Die -==| | | I
<...{_)_)_'' D `---`===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --==='---' C
Tom Foster
the dictionary and just cannot figure it out.
thanks
Lost Dragon
>the dictionary and just cannot figure it out.
I can't remember 100%, but...
I believe, in AD&D terms, the liche phylactery was a container that
held the liche's soul. It could be a vase, a box, a can - whatever
the liche wanted I suppose. I'm sure it'd be highly decorated with
gems and such. If I recall, to kill a liche forever, you had to
destroy it's phylactery.
In real world terms, if you're an Orthodox Jew, a phylactery is a box
with a strip of parchment in it (that has some Hebrew written on it).
There's more to it than that, but I'm not Jewish so that's all I can
say for sure.
Other definitions are "reminder" or "amulet".
Brian
Monster Hunter's Compendium, Volume III. Yes, I know it's a Ravenloft
product, but if you're using liched, IMO you can't really have a better
sourcebook.
If you kill the lich without destroying it's phylactery, and completely
annihilate it's body, it will take over the nearest dead or undead body. It
might also *magic jar* itself into a living body, which is automatically
destroyed by the lich's presence.
If you destroy the phylactery, you destroy the lich, even if you never face
it. Of course, no GM worth his salt is going to allow that to happen.
Liches should never be "disposable" enemies, like goblins or orcs can be. If
the PCs cross a lich, in whatever way, he should become a recurring nemesis.
If a party that has not learned that running is a viable option decides to
go lich hunting, it should be time to roll up a new party of characters.
Brian
http://web2.airmail.net/spektrum
<zarc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kdu6e$l3i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Okay, so a lich is an undead sorcerer with access to levels 1-9 of
> Wizard spells, right? With those capabilites and 11 Hit Dice, a lich
> has to be pretty damn tough, and best avoided if at all possible. And
> as if that wasn't bad enough, they keep their life forces in a phlacerty
> which you have to destroy in order to take out the lich for good.
>
> So I have two questions.
>
> 1. What happens if you find a lich, kill it, and utterly annihilate the
> body (leaving nothing but a smoldering pile of dust), but don't destroy
> the phylacerty?
>
> 2. What happens if you destroy the lich's phylacerty, but don't destroy
> (or even fight) the actual lich?
>
>
DungeonMasterDM
>1. What happens if you find a lich, kill it, and utterly annihilate the
>body (leaving nothing but a smoldering pile of dust), but don't destroy
>the phylacerty?
In my campaigns I allow a lich to tranfer it's life essence to another vessel,
such as a skeleton or zombie, within a certain range (1 mile per HD). Then the
lich must slowly change the new body into his own. Generally this takes between
1 month to 1 year per HD difference between the new body and the lich's
original. Thus an 18 HD lich forced to take residence in a 1 HD skeleton may
need several decades to change the body into his own. This restores his body to
it's original shape but doesn't restore lost/destroyed items.
>2. What happens if you destroy the lich's phylacerty, but don't destroy
>(or even fight) the actual lich?
>
>
In this case the lich is unable to flee to his phylactery and is bound forever
to his body still requiring the pc's to face him to destroy his body. In a few
cases I have allowed the lich to craft another phylactery but only at the loss
of a hit die. Thus the 18th level lich above crafts a new vessel for his spirit
but becomes 17th level afterward.
In either case the phylactery doesn't hold the lich's spirit, it just gives it
a place to run to should the body become destroyed or unusable. I usually have
liches hide their phylactery in places where no one can find them without
"very" great difficulty.
Some good places I have used included an uncut gem still imbedded in a cavern
wall (the dwarf amongst the group actually mined the area little knowing the
evil he was carrying until it was too late).
A single gem in a pile of others. Not even thinking about it, the group kept
the gems with them and sold them neer to home. (imagine their suprise when a
thousand miles away, the lich returned seemingly unhurt several years later.).
An item carried by the lich, such as a special weapon or item. Since the pc's
figured the phylactery was hidden, they never suspected the intelligent sword
they carted off was the actual essence of the lich.
Well that's my two cents worth. What else has everyone else done along these
lines?
Charles
My sites....
Undermountain
http://undermountain.20m.com/index.html
Telnor's Domain of Dread
http://telnorsdomainofdarkness.20m.com/
Drow of the Underdark
http://drowoftheunderdar.20m.com/index.html
Daedacus
http://daedacus.20m.com/index.html
X-Tension's Head Quarters (xmen rpg)
http://x-tension.20m.com/
Xanadu X-Tensiopn's sister team
http://xanadu.20m.com/
zarc...@my-deja.com
Clever hiding methods. I suppose that if our party was to face down a
lich (or should I say, WHEN the party faces down a lich, our DM has
promised to throw a lich at us eventually) I'd naturally hunt for the
phylacerty in any and all magical items, jewelry, anywhere the lich
might hide it, casting a detect evil on whatever we find. Would that
work? If the phylacerty was inside a gem that was embedded in a magical
sword, wouldn't the thing radiate evil, due to the lich's evil spirit?
But tell me, how hard is very hard? Something like leaving the
phylacerty sealed under 50 feet of solid concrete, totally inaccesible
to the PC's would be waxing impossible. Maybe if it was within a
valuable gem within a hidden compartment inside a secret room or
something like that.
zarc...@my-deja.com
>
> If you kill the lich without destroying it's phylactery, and
completely
> annihilate it's body, it will take over the nearest dead or undead
body. It
> might also *magic jar* itself into a living body, which is
automatically
> destroyed by the lich's presence.
>
> If you destroy the phylactery, you destroy the lich, even if you never
face
> it. Of course, no GM worth his salt is going to allow that to happen.
>
> Liches should never be "disposable" enemies, like goblins or orcs can
be. If
> the PCs cross a lich, in whatever way, he should become a recurring
nemesis.
> If a party that has not learned that running is a viable option
decides to
> go lich hunting, it should be time to roll up a new party of
characters.
So if a group of PC's does go after a lich, what do they go for first,
the phylacerty or the lich?
If they go for the lich first, then won't it just come right back in
another body, possibly even one of the PC's? Also, if the lich can
magic jar itself into the PC's, and destroy them by doing so, what's to
stop the lich from just bouncing in and out of each PC's body,
destroying them each with its presence?
If they go for the phylacerty first, which you said no decent GM would
allow, and destroy it, they wouldn't fight the lich. And since taking
out a box or a gem or a can or whatever is easier than fighting an 18th
level wizard, that would seem like a better way to do it.
And I think that a lich should be tough, but not impossible, to beat.
If the PC's are good enough, they should be able to nail that bastard.
But I kinda stopped dreading liches after I read up on the Tarasque...
Andrew Tellez
zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> But tell me, how hard is very hard? Something like leaving the
> phylacerty sealed under 50 feet of solid concrete, totally inaccesible
> to the PC's would be waxing impossible. Maybe if it was within a
> valuable gem within a hidden compartment inside a secret room or
> something like that.
It usually won't be totally inaccessable. If the lich's body is
destroyed, which is only moderately difficult, then he'll be forced back
to the phylactery. Since he's unlikely to want to stay in there, he'll
need to be able to get to another body. Most likely, there will be
something handy, like a ju-ju zombie. The room itself might be sealed
and warded, but not so tightly that he couldn't get in and out
occasionally.
The location should also be close enough that the lich can monitor it.
Since he's strongly advised to render the location proof against
divination, he can't scry it himself. So he'll need to set up a mundane
way to monitor the location.
Or, he could disguise it as a magic item and wear the thing. Whoever
destroys him can carry it around and think it's useful.
Another possibility is to keep it moving. Make a couple dozen
duplicates, give them to small squads of undead, and have them wander
around nearby.
DungeonMasterDM
>But tell me, how hard is very hard? Something like leaving the
>phylacerty sealed under 50 feet of solid concrete, totally inaccesible
>to the PC's would be waxing impossible. Maybe if it was within a
>valuable gem within a hidden compartment inside a secret room or
>something like that.
Considering the great magical powers of the Lich, hiding it's phalactery within
50' of solid stone is not beyond the probable. Specially considering such
spells as wraithform, move earth and teleportation.
The Lich is not a creature to be easily beaten and if it is then either it's
not being run right or your DM just wants you to think it destroyed.
PJS
Tom Foster <tfos...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8bwa5.4144$qX6.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a phylactery. I've read the MM
and
> the dictionary and just cannot figure it out.
Properly speaking a phylactery is a Jewish religious accoutrement consisting
of an ornamental container in which is kept a piece of scripture and which
is worn bound around the head. In the 1st ed. MM, the Lich in the
illustration seems to be wearing one. All the questions thus become rather
academic, because the phylactery isn't something that the Lich can hide away
somewhere: it's wearing it.
--
The Ox is like the Bamboo
Floating on the Ocean.
Brian
<zarc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kflk1$t3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> So if a group of PC's does go after a lich, what do they go for first,
> the phylacerty or the lich?
>
There shouldn't be a difference. If you try and think as a lich might think,
instead of as a GM does, the lich is not going to let his greatest weak spot
very far out of his sight. If the PCs look like they're going to threaten
the phylactery, the lich should be right there to protect it.
> If they go for the lich first, then won't it just come right back in
> another body, possibly even one of the PC's? Also, if the lich can
> magic jar itself into the PC's, and destroy them by doing so, what's to
> stop the lich from just bouncing in and out of each PC's body,
> destroying them each with its presence?
Once a lich has taken a body, it's his until that body is destroyed. It's
not going to be easy for a lich to transfer itself from its recently
destroyed body to its phylactery, to a new body. It should take some time,
and there should definitely be a refractory period when the lich is
completely helpless. At the least he should have to relearn his spells (a
lich may not need sleep, but he does need to study his spellbooks to regain
his spells).
>
> If they go for the phylacerty first, which you said no decent GM would
> allow, and destroy it, they wouldn't fight the lich. And since taking
> out a box or a gem or a can or whatever is easier than fighting an 18th
> level wizard, that would seem like a better way to do it.
Do you really think so? Consider that before they can destroy it, they need
to find it; and to find it, they need to figure out what they're looking
for. Once they've figured out what form the lich's phylactery takes, and
have discovered its probable location, they will need to go there and fight
through the lich's defenses to get to it. This gives the lich himself plenty
of time to be there to either spirit off his phylactery to a new hiding
place or face the greatly weakened PCs -- or both! In other words, to get to
the phylactery, they should definitely need to face the lich.
>
> And I think that a lich should be tough, but not impossible, to beat.
> If the PC's are good enough, they should be able to nail that bastard.
>
My point wasn't that liches should be unstoppable, but that they should be
major NPCs. Eventually, the PCs should be able to find a way to destroy the
lich, but not until the lich has had a chance to be a recurring figure a few
times, and definitely not on the first try. Liches are super-geniuses and
should be played as such. They'll have decoy phylacteries for cocky PCs to
destroy, will leave false trails of evidence for them to find, and may even
sacrifice a body to fool the PCs into thinking they've finished him off.
Make him a thorn in the PCs side that just won't go away no matter how many
times they blast him to smithereens. Hell, the lich's machinations can be
the setting for an entire campaign.
Brian
http://web2.airmail.net/spektrum
jbs
>Okay, so a lich is an undead sorcerer with access to levels 1-9 of
>Wizard spells, right? With those capabilites and 11 Hit Dice, a lich
>has to be pretty damn tough, and best avoided if at all possible. And
>as if that wasn't bad enough, they keep their life forces in a phlacerty
>which you have to destroy in order to take out the lich for good.
>
>So I have two questions.
>
>1. What happens if you find a lich, kill it, and utterly annihilate the
>body (leaving nothing but a smoldering pile of dust), but don't destroy
>the phylacerty?
The MM says the phylactery acts as a Magic Jar. Recently this very
thing happend in our game. An NPC wizard that was traveling with the
party was unlucky enough to fail her saving throw when coming to close
to the phylactery. The lich traded "bodies" with her and helped her
companions destroy the phylactery. He then disappeared when the rest
of the party wasn't watching. They're currently trying to find him
before he creates another phylactery.
>2. What happens if you destroy the lich's phylacerty, but don't destroy
>(or even fight) the actual lich?
>
Nothing. If he knows about it he'll make another one.
BTW, I don't have the VR guide to liches so this may all be
contradictory to what's in it. This is just how we ran it.
jbs
Bernard Peek
>
>So if a group of PC's does go after a lich, what do they go for first,
>the phylacerty or the lich?
Tough decision.
>
>If they go for the lich first, then won't it just come right back in
>another body, possibly even one of the PC's?
Yes.
> Also, if the lich can
>magic jar itself into the PC's, and destroy them by doing so, what's to
>stop the lich from just bouncing in and out of each PC's body,
>destroying them each with its presence?
When the Lich takes over the body it can't take over another one until
the party have killed the first body it took over.
>
>If they go for the phylacerty first, which you said no decent GM would
>allow, and destroy it, they wouldn't fight the lich. And since taking
>out a box or a gem or a can or whatever is easier than fighting an 18th
>level wizard, that would seem like a better way to do it.
That's fine if you can get to the phylactery without the Lich noticing.
If it notices you sneaking around it's going to get snippy. You really
don't want that. The lich will have hidden they phylactery, but the DM
should leave enough clues for a smart party to find it if they look very
carefully.
>
>And I think that a lich should be tough, but not impossible, to beat.
>If the PC's are good enough, they should be able to nail that bastard.
They aren't impossible to beat, but if you start a firefight you should
expect the lich to finish it.
Of course there are ways of defending against a lich. The party can use
magic items that can protect them against all or some of the lich's
attacks.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
b...@shrdlu.org.uk
Arivne
zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
<snip lich hiding its phylactery>
>
> Clever hiding methods. I suppose that if our party was to face down a
> lich (or should I say, WHEN the party faces down a lich, our DM has
> promised to throw a lich at us eventually) I'd naturally hunt for the
> phylactery in any and all magical items, jewelry, anywhere the lich
> might hide it, casting a detect evil on whatever we find. Would that
> work? If the phylactery was inside a gem that was embedded in a magical
> sword, wouldn't the thing radiate evil, due to the lich's evil spirit?
I can't quote a rule, but I assume that a lich's phylactery would
radiate both Evil and magic very strongly, and either (or both) could be
detected by the appropriate spells.
Detect Magic can be stopped by a yard of wood, a foot of stone, or an
inch of metal, so the lich could conceal the phylactery behind one of
these substances to foil magical detection. Detect Evil isn't stopped by
intervening substances, but could be fooled by placing the phylactery
against an Evil background (e.g. in an area under an Evil curse).
A good hiding technique would be to attach the phylactery to an Amulet
of Proof Against Detection and Location, which would protect the
phylactery from almost all detection and scrying attempts.
> But tell me, how hard is very hard? Something like leaving the
> phylacerty sealed under 50 feet of solid concrete, totally inaccesible
> to the PC's would be waxing impossible. Maybe if it was within a
> valuable gem within a hidden compartment inside a secret room or
> something like that.
In combination with the above methods, that could work.
Arivne
Brett Evill
> If the phylactery was inside a gem that was embedded in a magical
> sword, wouldn't the thing radiate evil, due to the lich's evil spirit?
Excuse me, I'm very out of date, but you have me interested.
As I understand the word, a phylactery is a small leather box containing a
number of passages fromn the Bible written on strips of parchment or vellum,
worn on the arm and the forehead by orthodox Jewish men to remind them of God's
Law. I can imagine the term being extended to some other sort of box worn or
carried about the person and containing spells written on paper or something
like it. But what sort of phylactery can be concealed inside a gem?
Regards,
--
Brett Evill
(The opinions expressed above are not those of the Bureau of Transport
Economics, the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services, or the
Australian Commonwealth Government.)
Schedar
>
> BTW, I don't have the VR guide to liches so this may all be
> contradictory to what's in it. This is just how we ran it.
> jbs
Yah, thats pretty much the way I've always heard of it. If the phylactery
is destroyed, you must also put down the lich to blot out the sucker for
good. If you just kill him without destroying the phylactery, then he will
find a new "host". Of course, I've run into liches that somehow had
multiple phylacteries...don't know how this works (we had to destroy all of
them).
Schedar
Scatter Gatherer
>zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> If the phylactery was inside a gem that was embedded in
a magical
>> sword, wouldn't the thing radiate evil, due to the lich's
evil spirit?
>
>Excuse me, I'm very out of date, but you have me interested.
>
>As I understand the word, a phylactery is a small leather box
containing a
>number of passages fromn the Bible written on strips of
parchment or vellum,
>worn on the arm and the forehead by orthodox Jewish men to
remind them of God's
>Law. I can imagine the term being extended to some other sort
of box worn or
>carried about the person and containing spells written on paper
or something
>like it. But what sort of phylactery can be concealed inside a
gem?
>
Probabaly the type covered by my dictionary's third definition:
"Something worn as a charm or safeguard".
However, I admit that the ones being spoken of don't seem to
be worn all that often.
Donald
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
PJS
Brian <spek...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:B9EF01D9B826C8AE.93B93DB1...@lp.airnews.net...
> > the phylacerty or the lich?
> >
>
think,
> instead of as a GM does, the lich is not going to let his greatest weak
spot
> very far out of his sight. If the PCs look like they're going to threaten
> the phylactery, the lich should be right there to protect it.
In fact, it's a phylactery, so it's fastened to his *&*!$#?! head!
PJS
Scatter Gatherer <dbachman...@ionet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:29152026...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
> Brett...@NOSPAMdotrs.gov.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
> >zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> If the phylactery was inside a gem that was embedded in
> a magical
> >> sword, wouldn't the thing radiate evil, due to the lich's
> evil spirit?
> >
> >Excuse me, I'm very out of date, but you have me interested.
> >
> >As I understand the word, a phylactery is a small leather box
> containing a
> >number of passages fromn the Bible written on strips of
> parchment or vellum,
> >worn on the arm and the forehead by orthodox Jewish men to
> remind them of God's
> >Law. I can imagine the term being extended to some other sort
> of box worn or
> >carried about the person and containing spells written on paper
> or something
> >like it. But what sort of phylactery can be concealed inside a
> gem?
> >
>
> Probabaly the type covered by my dictionary's third definition:
> "Something worn as a charm or safeguard".
>
> However, I admit that the ones being spoken of don't seem to
> be worn all that often.
Then this is a mistake; the Lich wears its phylactery. Presumably instead of
scripture, the writings inside would be fragments of the magical incantation
spoken when he first became undead. The old MM picture even shows the
creature wearing some sort of item, which could easily be a small decorated
box, bound to its head.
PJS
jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote in message
news:lvummsomgo8sabh6n...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:44:49 GMT, zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Okay, so a lich is an undead sorcerer with access to levels 1-9 of
> >Wizard spells, right? With those capabilites and 11 Hit Dice, a lich
> >has to be pretty damn tough, and best avoided if at all possible. And
> >as if that wasn't bad enough, they keep their life forces in a phlacerty
> >which you have to destroy in order to take out the lich for good.
> >
> >So I have two questions.
> >
> >1. What happens if you find a lich, kill it, and utterly annihilate the
> >body (leaving nothing but a smoldering pile of dust), but don't destroy
> >the phylacerty?
>
> The MM says the phylactery acts as a Magic Jar. Recently this very
> thing happend in our game. An NPC wizard that was traveling with the
> party was unlucky enough to fail her saving throw when coming to close
> to the phylactery. The lich traded "bodies" with her and helped her
> companions destroy the phylactery. He then disappeared when the rest
> of the party wasn't watching. They're currently trying to find him
> before he creates another phylactery.
The MM doesn't say any such thing; it just says that the process of storing
its life force is similar to the Magic Jar spell. There's no suggestion that
the Lich can use it to possess another body.
Varsil Savai
wrote:
Different kind of phylactery...
----------------------------------------------------
Consider yourself flamed.
I have erected a spamblocker. Simply remove the
#$% characters if you feel the need to email me.
Varsil Savai
wrote:
Bah, that pic shows him wearing a circlet... unless that gem opens
somehow (and is hollow), it's not a little box :).
And, according to my MM: "the lich will always take great care to see
to it that it's phylactery is well hidden and protected". I take that
to mean that the lich doesn't wear it most of the time. Or maybe they
just always wear a hat :).
And my dictionary doesn't specify that it has to be worn, just saying
a phylactery can be an "amulet, charm, or safeguard". Safeguard seems
the most appropriate...
jbs
Wow. That's mean. As a DM, I'd rule that if there was more than one,
when the body was destroyed, the sould wouldn't know were to go so
it'd just pass on like normal.
It doesn't have to be easy for the players, but it should be possible.
Of course, multi-phylacteries could make a really interesting extended
campaign.
jbs
jbs
wrote:
>
>Brian <spek...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>news:B9EF01D9B826C8AE.93B93DB1...@lp.airnews.net...
>>
>> <zarc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8kflk1$t3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > So if a group of PC's does go after a lich, what do they go for first,
>> > the phylacerty or the lich?
>> >
>>
>> There shouldn't be a difference. If you try and think as a lich might
>think,
>> instead of as a GM does, the lich is not going to let his greatest weak
>spot
>> very far out of his sight. If the PCs look like they're going to threaten
>> the phylactery, the lich should be right there to protect it.
>------
>In fact, it's a phylactery, so it's fastened to his *&*!$#?! head!
What's the point of having a phylactery if you have to have it on your
person? Seems rather redundant.
jbs
jbs
wrote:
Hmm. The actual text is rather vague. I could see it going either
way. Of course the text under "Ecology" says that both Magic Jar and
Reincarnation are used in enchanting a phylactery. Still very vague
but tends to support my view I think.
jbs
Time Pilot
> > There shouldn't be a difference. If you try and think as a lich might
> think,
> > instead of as a GM does, the lich is not going to let his greatest weak
> spot
> > very far out of his sight. If the PCs look like they're going to threaten
> > the phylactery, the lich should be right there to protect it.
> ------
> In fact, it's a phylactery, so it's fastened to his *&*!$#?! head!
>
Yah basicly. A lich wears his phylactery when ever he is "awake" (i.e
active), and hides it *very* well when "asleep"(inactive). Remember that
with out his phylactery a lich is vulnerable to destruction should his
current body be destroyed. A lich assues that his phylactery is safe when
he is wearing it.
Rember that liches are fantasticly powerful, with Lvl 1-9 Wizard available
to them,and touch effects, and instant fear, and the ability to summon
undead, etc.
To be truly nasty you can have your PC's encounter an "Alhoon" a Mindflayer
lich, as described in the Illithad.
==========
Time Pilot <haxo...@hotmail.com>
Never say DIE !!
Brian
and their phylacteries:
"a lich will protect itself from annihilation with the creation of a
phylactery in which it stores its life force. This is similar to a magic jar
spell. In order to ensure the final destruction of a lich, its body must be
wholly annihilated and its phylactery must be sought out and destroyed in
some manner. Since the lich will always take great care to see to it that
its phylactery is well hidden and protected"
There is no mention of the lich wearing its phylactery -- in fact, if the
lich is wearing it, the phylactery can't be "well hidden," nor would
adventurers need to "seek it out." Most liches are probably not Jewish,
their phylacteries do not contain scriptures, and they do not wear them, on
their head or otherwise.
Also, a lich has no "cycle" of activity and inactivity as does a vampire. It
is eternally awake, aware, and active. It has no fear of sunlight, and no
need to replenish itself through rest.
Brian
http://web2.airmail.net/spektrum
"Time Pilot" <Haxo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Haxor1984-ya023680...@news.tiac.net...
Matthew Bond
"Varsil Savai" <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:396ce0ff...@24.2.10.79...
But a safeguard is something that protects *you*, not something you
*protect*. ie it is not something *you* 'guard safely'...
<g>
Brett Evill
wrote...
>
>Brett...@NOSPAMdotrs.gov.au (Brett Evill) wrote:
>>
>>But what sort of phylactery can be concealed inside a
>gem?
>>
>
>Probabaly the type covered by my dictionary's third definition:
>"Something worn as a charm or safeguard".
Inside a jewel I could understand. But inside a gem!?
Varsil Savai
If I have something that I can stash in my house, and then later be
attacked and destroyed by a band of thugs... and it brings me back to
life, I'd call that safeguarding me :). You hide it because a
failure to do so makes it easy for the band of thugs to inactivate it,
thus preventing it from serving it's safeguarding functions (IE, you
stay dead :).
Egoslayer1
it's reasonable to assume the lich CAN posses another body, else what's
the big threat to NOT getting around to destroying the phylactery? who
cares if this evil thing sits in some hidden compartment in the
innermost chamber of Surion the Mad? no harm no foul right? you kill
the lich and can't find the phylactery....who cares? move on to the
next adventure....that's the way it would be if he can't take another
body...I play where they CAN...
Of course the players didn't like it when the the lich had all his
tresure in a huge chest, including thousounds of coins
(intentionally)....so the players just left the coins in the chest out
of convienience and took the whole thing...well as you might have
guessed by now the phylactery was in a hidden compartment in the
chest...once in the safety of thier home with all this new treasure,
one of the party members was taken over...rather than attack, he waited
until everyone slept and snuck out with everything via a portable
hole...the players were none to thrilled that day...
It's true that a lich is not unbeatable, but if played properly they
are one of the tuffest adversaries you can run into...they can outthink
and strategize 99.99% of the population, they have wizard spells beyond
the abilities of 99.99% of the wizards, they have certain immunities
granted by cheating death, and they have had a lot longer to think
about how to protect thier home and kill intruders than you have had to
think about how to take thier property and infiltrate thier lair. IMHO
a party who does not posses a fair degree of power, and use it VERY
cleverly, is signing thier death warrant by tangling with a lich,
darwinism is much more alive in my campaign than in todays world, only
the strong survive, whether that strength is physical or mental is no
the point. Liches are the stuff of the most terrifying legends, and
horrible nightmares....
Egoslayer1
***
The MM doesn't say any such thing; it just says that the process of
storing
>its life force is similar to the Magic Jar spell. There's no
suggestion that
>the Lich can use it to possess another body.
Hmm. The actual text is rather vague. I could see it going either
way. Of course the text under "Ecology" says that both Magic Jar and
Reincarnation are used in enchanting a phylactery. Still very vague
but tends to support my view I think.
jbs
--
Egoslayer1
_______________________________________
O=[_______________________________________]=O
} {
{ I have NEVER bought ANYTHING from an }
} unsolicited email message, who is it {
{ that is buying all this stuff that }
} the 'spammers' keep on spamming? }
} - SPAM is BAD - }
} Egoslayer1@[remove this]hotmail.com }
{_______________________________________{
O=[_______________________________________]=O
Karl Knechtel
<snip>
: Rember that liches are fantasticly powerful, with Lvl 1-9 Wizard available
^
Doesn't that mean that a lich could just /wish/ the PCs were dead? How is
any PC supposed to have a chance in hell against that?
: to them,and touch effects, and instant fear, and the ability to summon
: undead, etc.
: To be truly nasty you can have your PC's encounter an "Alhoon" a Mindflayer
: lich, as described in the Illithad.
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
PJS
> Where are these theories coming from? The Monstrous Manual says of liches
> and their phylacteries:
> "a lich will protect itself from annihilation with the creation of a
> phylactery in which it stores its life force. This is similar to a magic
jar
> spell. In order to ensure the final destruction of a lich, its body must
be
> wholly annihilated and its phylactery must be sought out and destroyed in
> some manner. Since the lich will always take great care to see to it that
> its phylactery is well hidden and protected"
>
> There is no mention of the lich wearing its phylactery -- in fact, if the
> lich is wearing it, the phylactery can't be "well hidden," nor would
> adventurers need to "seek it out." Most liches are probably not Jewish,
> their phylacteries do not contain scriptures, and they do not wear them,
on
> their head or otherwise.
So why use the word in the first place? When the somewhat more erudite Mr
Gygax wrote the 1st ed. MM, this is obviously what he had in mind: a
container holding something significant strapped to the head. With the
advent of 2nd ed. the authors didn't know or didn't care what a phylactery
was and so decided that it was just a magical thingummybob that can be kept
hidden somewhere. Some people then decided to make it a fully functioning
magic jar, as if Liches weren't powerful enough to begin with.
PJS
> >>
> >> <zarc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8kflk1$t3u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> > So if a group of PC's does go after a lich, what do they go for
first,
> >> > the phylacerty or the lich?
> >> >
> >>
> >think,
> >> instead of as a GM does, the lich is not going to let his greatest weak
> >spot
> >> very far out of his sight. If the PCs look like they're going to
threaten
> >> the phylactery, the lich should be right there to protect it.
> >------
>
> person? Seems rather redundant.
Aaargh!!! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A PHYLACTERY IS! You strap it to your head!
That's like saying, "What's the point of a shoe if you have to go around
with your foot stuck into it?"
PJS
Egoslayer1 <egosl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kkdt2$ago$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I tend to agree...while there is some room for interpretation, I think
> it's reasonable to assume the lich CAN posses another body, else what's
> the big threat to NOT getting around to destroying the phylactery? who
> cares if this evil thing sits in some hidden compartment in the
> innermost chamber of Surion the Mad? no harm no foul right? you kill
> the lich and can't find the phylactery....who cares? move on to the
> next adventure....that's the way it would be if he can't take another
> body...I play where they CAN...
That is illogical, captain. If the phylactery is hidden and it can use it to
possess people, then the incentive in the scenario you described is *not* to
find it. If you don't go looking, it can't get anyone.
-------
> Of course the players didn't like it when the the lich had all his
> tresure in a huge chest, including thousounds of coins
> (intentionally)....so the players just left the coins in the chest out
> of convienience and took the whole thing...well as you might have
> guessed by now the phylactery was in a hidden compartment in the
> chest...once in the safety of thier home with all this new treasure,
> one of the party members was taken over...rather than attack, he waited
> until everyone slept and snuck out with everything via a portable
> hole...the players were none to thrilled that day...
>
> It's true that a lich is not unbeatable, but if played properly they
> are one of the tuffest adversaries you can run into...they can outthink
> and strategize 99.99% of the population, they have wizard spells beyond
> the abilities of 99.99% of the wizards, they have certain immunities
> granted by cheating death, and they have had a lot longer to think
> about how to protect thier home and kill intruders than you have had to
> think about how to take thier property and infiltrate thier lair. IMHO
> a party who does not posses a fair degree of power, and use it VERY
> cleverly, is signing thier death warrant by tangling with a lich,
> darwinism is much more alive in my campaign than in todays world, only
> the strong survive, whether that strength is physical or mental is no
> the point. Liches are the stuff of the most terrifying legends, and
> horrible nightmares....
Like they're not powerful enough being able to cast Power Word: Kill, Wish
and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, paralyse by touch and have 11+ Hit Dice,
you have to give them a free Magic Jar as well?
Sir Bob
worn strapped to the left arm (but never the right arm, keep that in mind).
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
PJS <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:963515386.26575.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
zarc...@my-deja.com
da...@torfree.net (Karl Knechtel) wrote:
> Time Pilot (Haxo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> : Rember that liches are fantasticly powerful, with Lvl 1-9 Wizard
> available
^
> Doesn't that mean that a lich could just /wish/ the PCs were dead? How
> is any PC supposed to have a chance in hell against that?
First of all, if a DM created an adventure involving a lich that used
that kind of dirty tactic, thereby giving the PC's no chance, that DM
wouldn't be very popular with his players, and may just need to go
searching for a new group.
Secondly, wishing for someone to die is dangerous work. We'll all die
eventually; such a wish could simply advance the wisher forward in time
to a point where the PC's have all died a natural death. The fates are
sure to intervene for the worst when such a devious and greedy wish is
made. The lich would probably be more content to stay in his own time,
destroying interlopers with his vast array of other spells.
zarc...@my-deja.com
Egoslayer1 <egosl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree...while there is some room for interpretation, I think
> it's reasonable to assume the lich CAN posses another body, else
what's
> the big threat to NOT getting around to destroying the phylactery? who
> cares if this evil thing sits in some hidden compartment in the
> innermost chamber of Surion the Mad? no harm no foul right? you kill
> the lich and can't find the phylactery....who cares? move on to the
> next adventure....that's the way it would be if he can't take another
> body...I play where they CAN...
>
> tresure in a huge chest, including thousounds of coins
> (intentionally)....so the players just left the coins in the chest out
> of convienience and took the whole thing...well as you might have
> guessed by now the phylactery was in a hidden compartment in the
> chest...once in the safety of thier home with all this new treasure,
> one of the party members was taken over...rather than attack, he
waited
> until everyone slept and snuck out with everything via a portable
> hole...the players were none to thrilled that day...
>
> It's true that a lich is not unbeatable, but if played properly they
> are one of the tuffest adversaries you can run into...they can
outthink
> and strategize 99.99% of the population, they have wizard spells
beyond
> the abilities of 99.99% of the wizards, they have certain immunities
> granted by cheating death, and they have had a lot longer to think
> about how to protect thier home and kill intruders than you have had
to
> think about how to take thier property and infiltrate thier lair. IMHO
> a party who does not posses a fair degree of power, and use it VERY
> darwinism is much more alive in my campaign than in todays world, only
> the strong survive, whether that strength is physical or mental is no
> the point. Liches are the stuff of the most terrifying legends, and
> horrible nightmares....
Granter, an 18th level wizard with the ability to come back to life does
sound frightening, but what is a lich without its spells? I see a
spelless lich as nothing more than a zombie with more intelligence,
more hit dice, better THAC0, a few special abilities, and a better armor
class. Given that, wouldn't a lich caught within a Silence, 15'
(or is it 10 feet? I can never remember) Radius spell be mostly
helples?
Also, a lich, like any magic user, is only as good as the DM that writes
it.
Egoslayer1
use it to possess people, then the incentive in the scenario you
described is *not* to find it. If you don't go looking, it can't get
***
I might be having a brain fart cause your posts are normally well
worded, but this one throws me off...If I understand correctly you are
saying "your better off not finding the phylactery if it acts as a
magic jar" ?
If that is what your saying, my response is this...to some degree yes,
that's true...why would you want to mess with it? well for one, if you
are a 'good guy' not just some mercenary out looking for loot, you
would probably be obligated to rid the world of such an evil creature...
And if the lich wants to posses one of your party members, it would
place the phylactery somewhere close enough to do that, but not easy to
get too. I don't recall a physical 'block' of any type to a magic jar,
there is a distance limitation, but I think 50' <insert some distance
withing the magic jar rules> of stone would make your phylactery pretty
darn safe, and still give you the option of possesing PC's...
Also, bear in mind, PC's are not the only thing that can be
possesed...a bird or rat, or deer or whatever, though this will be
risky, it could be done, and I bet you would be on the top of that
lich's list when he gets a REAL body...meaning you have another reason
to finish him off and find that darn phylactery, FEAR...
Further, doesn't it say something about a lich not CASTING his spells?
thay just happen? if that's the case that 2HP rat could have stoneskins
and fireballs and who knows what else? or was it just that they don't
memorize as a normal wizard would have too?
***
> > the point. Liches are the stuff of the most terrifying legends, and
> > horrible nightmares....
> -------
" Like they're not powerful enough being able to cast Power Word: Kill,
Wish and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, paralyse by touch and have 11+
Hit Dice, you have to give them a free Magic Jar as well?" -- Sir Bob
***
I do, but then I want a lich to be a foe the PC's fear and respect...
Some people like playing a mamby-pamby lich, which takes a couple
meinutes and a deluge of spells to turn into a pile of ashes, and count
coins and move on...I figure if you read articles on what it takes ot
be a lich, you tend to give them more mileage as it's a whole lot of
work and they were at least 18th level, so they earned the right to
be 'BAD'...
--
Egoslayer1
_______________________________________
O=[_______________________________________]=O
} {
{ I have NEVER bought ANYTHING from an }
} unsolicited email message, who is it {
{ that is buying all this stuff that }
} the 'spammers' keep on spamming? }
} - SPAM is BAD - }
} Egoslayer1@[remove this]hotmail.com }
{_______________________________________{
O=[_______________________________________]=O
jbs
wrote:
>
>jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote in message
>> What's the point of having a phylactery if you have to have it on your
>> person? Seems rather redundant.
>---------
>Aaargh!!! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A PHYLACTERY IS! You strap it to your head!
>That's like saying, "What's the point of a shoe if you have to go around
>with your foot stuck into it?"
Not quite. A shoe is meant to be worn. A phylactery is meant as an
insurance policy against adventurers storming your tower and
separating your head from the rest of your body. Once you life force
goes into the phylactery then they must destroy it too. It doesn't
make sense to have it right there strapped to your body. Not the act
of someone intelligent enough to make it to lichdom.
Just MHO.
Now it may very well be that the purpose of a phylactery has changed
from 1E to 2E but the name was kept. I don't know. I don't think I
every fought a lich back in my 1E days. I didn't really start to get
serious about DMing until 2E came out.
jbs
Sir Bob
phy|lac|ter|y (fe lak'ter e) n., pl. -ter|ies 1 either of two small leather
cases containing texts from the Jewish law, worn by Othrodox Jewish males
during weekday morning prayers, to remind them to keep the Law. One is
strapped to the forehead, the other to the left arm. 2 figurative. a
reminder. 3 figurative. a charm worn as a protection; amulet.
PJS, being the literal-minded git that he is, takes the use of the term
"phylactery" to mean that all liches are Othodox Jewish males (see def. 1).
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
jbs <j...@excelonline.com> wrote in message
news:g38smsk2riq544nrr...@4ax.com...
jbs
wrote:
>That is illogical, captain. If the phylactery is hidden and it can use it to
>possess people, then the incentive in the scenario you described is *not* to
>find it. If you don't go looking, it can't get anyone.
That's why my liches hide them in places around lots of people.
Bottom of the town well? Corner stone of the local lords manor?
Borrowing from the description of MJ, the phylactery doesn't have to
be touched.
>
>Like they're not powerful enough being able to cast Power Word: Kill, Wish
>and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, paralyse by touch and have 11+ Hit Dice,
>you have to give them a free Magic Jar as well?
That pretty much sums it up. They make excellent reoccuring villians
though. My group has benn after this one for several years real and
game time.
jbs
Henry J. Leckenby
: Secondly, wishing for someone to die is dangerous work. We'll all die
: eventually; such a wish could simply advance the wisher forward in time
: to a point where the PC's have all died a natural death. The fates are
: sure to intervene for the worst when such a devious and greedy wish is
: made. The lich would probably be more content to stay in his own time,
: destroying interlopers with his vast array of other spells.
In my campaigns, ALL wishes are "Monkey's Paw" wishes. (After
the short story by W.W. Jacobs.) Since all the players knew going in
that wishes would be answered in the most unpleasent, grudging way
possible (the forces of the universe don't like folks cheating)
then the wish became a desparate last resort. It has allowed more
"wish availibility" than I could have otherwise done,
Harry Leckenby
"Okay, wishing ring -- make me a cheese sandwich!"
Sir Bob
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Egoslayer1 <egosl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kl7uu$1p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> " That is illogical, captain. If the phylactery is hidden and it can
> use it to possess people, then the incentive in the scenario you
> described is *not* to find it. If you don't go looking, it can't get
> " Like they're not powerful enough being able to cast Power Word: Kill,
> Wish and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, paralyse by touch and have 11+
Raphael Russell
When you think about it, every magic item in a Lich's treasure hoard
could quite possibly have been made by that lich, meaning that each item
was designed with a specific purpose. The best way to do this is to not
use the random item tables for determining treasure, but to hand-pick
every object the lich has and uses. In addition to that, you should
also hand-pick the gear for some of the lich's main lieutenants and
guardians. Its worth the effort. After all, you're building a campaign
around this creature, not just a one time hack-n-slash (or at least you
*should*).
Also, I'd like to weigh in on this matter of phylacteries and what they
are.
Personally, I like the idea of it being a piece of ancient literature
physically connected to the lich (language primeval, anyone?). However,
others may not feel the same way. You may like the desperately hidden
nick-nack with the magic jar abilities that the pcs have to spend a year
and a day finding in order to bring about the final destruction of the
creature. Its your campaign, you do what you want.
However, don't think that an item in full view of everyone that sees the
lich would make the object more vulnerable than one carefully hidden.
The phylactery could possibly require a special quest to be destroyed,
something along the lines of destroying an artifact. For instance,
possible ways to unmake the the phylactery could be: its written in a
long dead language, and the party must find some way to translate it so
that the party's mage can research a spell to unmake it, the ink used to
write it on must be destroyed by the tears of a maiden on her deathbed,
or similar such bizarre conditions. Additionally, it should be
necessary to bear in mind that the lich would have contingencies for
just such a possibility, whether it be a guardian at a critical locale,
minions seeking to recover the phylactery, or incredibly dangerous
enchanments on the phylactery.
While I choose to eschew the hard-to-find-magic-jarring object, by no
means is it any less difficult to deal with the phylactery of a lich in
my campaigns.
A.o.D.
I am not in charge.
Varsil Savai
wrote:
My favourite "monkey's paw" wish...
Player with an efreet, has two wishes left, but of course, the efreet
is _not_ his friend :). Anyhow, he's clinging to a cliff face being
attacked by goblins dropping rocks on him, and he calls up the efreet.
That moment, he gets knocked off the cliff by a hit from a boulder...
Player: "I wish I wasn't falling!"
Efreet: "Your wish is my...
*THUMP*
Efreet: "...command. You are no longer falling. You have one last
wish remaining..."
Ubiquitous
--
"I don't know what kind of hell-demon you are buddy, but I'd wizz
on Mother Theresa herself to avoid that fate!"
Sir Bob
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:8kll5g$15p$1...@server.cntfl.com...
Sir Bob
Sir Bob
P.S. Nih!
Sir Bob <pr...@dlcwest.com> wrote in message
news:396e6e6c$1...@news.newsdudes.com...
Jeriko
Brett Evill <Brett...@NOSPAMdotrs.gov.au> wrote in message
news:8kh0lk$9bs...@cook.dotrs.gov.au...
> zarc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > If the phylactery was inside a gem that was embedded in a magical
> > sword, wouldn't the thing radiate evil, due to the lich's evil spirit?
>
> Excuse me, I'm very out of date, but you have me interested.
>
> As I understand the word, a phylactery is a small leather box containing a
> number of passages fromn the Bible written on strips of parchment or
vellum,
> worn on the arm and the forehead by orthodox Jewish men to remind them of
God's
> Law. I can imagine the term being extended to some other sort of box worn
or
> carried about the person and containing spells written on paper or
something
> like it. But what sort of phylactery can be concealed inside a gem?
>
********
Used in AD&D, a phylactery is the vessel that contains the essence or "soul"
of a lich (an undead being who was in life a high-level magic user). It is
generally considered to be a small container made of sturdy and non-pourous
material -- marble, gold, etc. Destruction of the phylactery is necessary
to destroy the lich, as his undead body "regenerates" as long as his essence
is in it's protected container.
Back to the original question, unless the gem concealing the phylactery is
enchanted to conceal the evil essence of the phylactery, I would rule that
the gem, but not the sword itself, would radiate evil. Therefore, a Detect
Evil would orient specifically toward the gem, although long concealment in
this manner might give the sword a residual trace.
Bernard Peek
<da...@torfree.net> writes
>Time Pilot (Haxo...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
><snip>
>: Rember that liches are fantasticly powerful, with Lvl 1-9 Wizard available
> ^
>Doesn't that mean that a lich could just /wish/ the PCs were dead? How is
>any PC supposed to have a chance in hell against that?
The same way they deal with any other powerful mage. These things are
supposed to be tough. It's quite possible that the lich will have
multiple wishes available, and so will the party.
It's difficult to use a wish to kill people, most characters of the
level needed to go lich-hunting will make their saving throw 95% of the
time.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
b...@shrdlu.org.uk
Egoslayer1
now...where's my coffee...?
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>And besides, if "The dead don't fuck", what do you call vampires?
<snip>
Oral fetishists?
:-O
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
"Pain is inevitable; Misery is an option".
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Karl Knechtel
<snip>
: The same way they deal with any other powerful mage. These things are
: supposed to be tough. It's quite possible that the lich will have
: multiple wishes available, and so will the party.
: It's difficult to use a wish to kill people, most characters of the
: level needed to go lich-hunting will make their saving throw 95% of the
: time.
That's really what I was trying to get at. What are the rules (mechanics)
on causing death by means of a /wish/ spell?
Varsil Savai
Arivne
Karl Knechtel wrote:
>
<snip using a Wish to kill opponents>
>
> That's really what I was trying to get at. What are the rules
> (mechanics) on causing death by means of a /wish/ spell?
>
> Karl Knechtel {:>
> da728 at torfree dot net
From the wording in the spell description, it appears that you can't
Wish an opponent dead, since it's "grossly unfair". If you try, the DM
is encouraged to hose you. Since it's supposed to be impossible, no
mechanics are given.
If the DM decides to allow it anyway, he should (IMHO) allow the target
a saving throw vs. magic to avoid the effect. If the Wish includes a
specific cause of death, the save can be modified appropriately (e.g. to
an ability score check). If the Wish is used to emulate a specific spell
or magic item ability, the normal mechanics would be used.
A range limit (100 yards?) would be good, as this gives the target a
fighting chance to detect and stop the attack.
Since the effect is so strong, you could either double the standard
penalty (to -6 Strength, 4d4 days of bed rest, age 10 years), apply a
Wild Magic Surge to the caster, or have a magical backlash that requires
the user of the Wish to make the same saving throw as the victim to
avoid death.
Or maybe all three. <eg>
Arivne
PJS
Karl Knechtel <da...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:FxtDyG.FF...@torfree.net...
> Bernard Peek (ber...@shrdlu.com) wrote:
> <snip>
> : The same way they deal with any other powerful mage. These things are
> : supposed to be tough. It's quite possible that the lich will have
> : multiple wishes available, and so will the party.
>
> : It's difficult to use a wish to kill people, most characters of the
> : level needed to go lich-hunting will make their saving throw 95% of the
> : time.
>
> on causing death by means of a /wish/ spell?
I'd say that the character would simply get a saving throw and die if it
failed. If I wanted to discourage the use of such wishes, I'd then make the
wisher save or die, and then the victim, and so on until someone died, a bit
like in that film of a Dennis Wheatley novel with Christopher Lee, where if
you invoke Death he can't leave empty-handed.
Brian
references to game mechanics. If they try to hedge the wish with conditions,
it simply doesn't take effect; if the make reference to game mechanics, it
doesn't take effect. In both cases, the spell is spell is lost and the
caster ages, as per the rules (and must make a system shock roll for
unnatural aging). With that in mind, how do you wish a person dead?
"I wish you would die!"
Done! Eventually, all mortals die (even though some don't stay dead).
"I wish you were dead!"
Done! The wisher is transported through time and space to witness the death
of the target -- and if that event is 30 years in the future, the caster
ages the full 30 years; system shock roll.
I wish you would die of [specific cause]!
Done! But of course, there's no way for the player to know that.
In other words, grant the wish without taking the character out of play.
Power Word, Kill is a much more viable option that wishing a character dead,
IMO. Of course, I don't leave that spell lying around either.
Brian
spek...@airmail.net
http://web2.airmail.net/spektrum
"Karl Knechtel" <da...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:FxtDyG.FF...@torfree.net...
> Bernard Peek (ber...@shrdlu.com) wrote:
> <snip>
> : The same way they deal with any other powerful mage. These things are
> : supposed to be tough. It's quite possible that the lich will have
> : multiple wishes available, and so will the party.
>
> : It's difficult to use a wish to kill people, most characters of the
> : level needed to go lich-hunting will make their saving throw 95% of the
> : time.
>
> That's really what I was trying to get at. What are the rules (mechanics)
> on causing death by means of a /wish/ spell?
>
Bernard Peek
<da...@torfree.net> writes
>Bernard Peek (ber...@shrdlu.com) wrote:
><snip>
>: The same way they deal with any other powerful mage. These things are
>: supposed to be tough. It's quite possible that the lich will have
>: multiple wishes available, and so will the party.
>
>: It's difficult to use a wish to kill people, most characters of the
>: level needed to go lich-hunting will make their saving throw 95% of the
>: time.
>
>That's really what I was trying to get at. What are the rules (mechanics)
>on causing death by means of a /wish/ spell?
Everything I've seen in print suggests that a wish can't just be used to
kill someone. At the very least they get a saving throw, possibly with
some penalties.
Xquel
"Arivne" wrote in message >
> From the wording in the spell description, it appears that you can't
> Wish an opponent dead, since it's "grossly unfair". If you try, the DM
> is encouraged to hose you. Since it's supposed to be impossible, no
> mechanics are given.
The only time a PC tried this, I made sure he stated his wish three times,
just to be fair. "I wish I could witness Blazon's death." That character
was wished away to the future and got to see Emperor Blazon on his death
bed........
Halaster
Back in one of my FR campaigns, I made it REALLY interesting for
anyone wanting to permanently kill Szass Tam, the Zulkir of
Necromancy and my favorite lich of all time.
In that campaign, most undead worhipped Orcus. Szass Tam had
made a deal with Orcus whereby his phylactery was secreted away
in a hidden room deep inside Orcus's palace. If the players
wanted to kill off Szass Tam, they merely had to travel down
through the Abyss to Orcus's lair, work their way to his
(heavily guarded) palace, break/sneak in, search through the
palace while avoiding guards (such as Balors), death traps, etc,
find the phylactery, and destroy it. Of course, Szass Tam was
able to find a way to create his phylactery out of adamantite,
which made it all the harder. >;-]
Worse yet though, Szass Tam in his infinite diabolicalness had
cast a chain contingency spell on the amulet that Orcus held, so
that if it ever got damaged, his essence would automatically
transfer to a back-up phylactery that Szass Tam had hidden in
his own castle. As you can tell, I wanted to keep Szass Tam
around. ;-)
The following never did get used, but I wanted to turn Halaster
into a lich, and do you know what he was going to use for his
phylactery? Yup...the ENTIRE DUNGEON OF UNDERMOUNTAIN! Let's see
them break THAT! ;-)
Halaster
"Undermountain, the Realms' deadliest dungeon? I prefer to call it home."
"Elminster? Bah! Neophyte!"
----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
thu...@my-deja.com
wish to kill people, most characters of the
> level needed to go lich-hunting will make their saving throw 95% of
the
> time.
>
Dear Sirah,
Dear Gods! why would I wish you dead, you may have some contingency to
take care of that.
As a no voting member of the Ultra Orthodox Wing of the Liches Society
of Prime Worlds (UOWLSPW), I beg to differ in the most inoffensive
means possible. While we liches are Old Farts, we do most humbly admit
that the High Level Campaign book had at least a few good points:
Gods fail on 1
Artifacts fail on 2
Mortals fail on 3
If your gamesmaster applies even this rule, that is 200 % more often.
And as our President Pro Tempre, Zhengyi has pointed out, a good
Disruption takes care of most trinkets that help with saves, and then
many spells have no save (Old Farts: ray of enfeeblement, slow, etc..)
Please give liches their due. That Vecna gives us a bad name and makes
Gamesmasters feel the need to make us infinitely powerful. For shame!
With a modicum of thought, my fellow liches and I can destroy your
mortals souls without so much as a 'Serpent'. Bless you.
Humbly yours,
Uncle Screwtape
Collin Campbell
>
> What's the point of having a phylactery if you have to have it on your
> person? Seems rather redundant.
I'd wager that "Phylactery" was just a pretty name chosen at 3am by a
couple of guys
who needed to get a product to market.
For the love of the game I don't think it's worth arguing over what the
dictionary says.
Besides that, you are playing a fantasy game that is set on a fantasy world
where Jews
and their rules of where to place anything exists. Even if it did, I doubt
seriously that a
Lich would follow them, after all I'm sure they're used to breaking the
rules already.
I rigged a game of mine so that the phylactery of the Lich was passed off
to the players
as a reward for a previous game. They were told it was a magical luck
stone that will
aid them in their darkest hour. They never did get wise as to how come
they never
were able to destroy their greatest enemy. They all got dead eventually
and I had a good
laugh after the fact when I showed the original game plan of when they
acquired the
phylactery.
Best regards,
Collin
Varsil Savai
Next, on Fox... when good DM's go bad...
PJS
Collin Campbell <col...@invidicus.net> wrote in message
news:01bff0f5$e2e9f360$7c212104@satanas...
> > >In fact, it's a phylactery, so it's fastened to his *&*!$#?! head!
> >
> > What's the point of having a phylactery if you have to have it on your
> > person? Seems rather redundant.
> > jbs
>
>
> I'd wager that "Phylactery" was just a pretty name chosen at 3am by a
> couple of guys
> who needed to get a product to market.
I doubt it. Gygax knew full well what a phylactery was, and the 1st ed. MM
shows the Lich with some sort of ornamental object, which could easily be a
decorated box, bound to its head.
-------
> For the love of the game I don't think it's worth arguing over what the
> dictionary says.
> Besides that, you are playing a fantasy game that is set on a fantasy
world
> where Jews
> and their rules of where to place anything exists. Even if it did, I
doubt
> seriously that a
> Lich would follow them, after all I'm sure they're used to breaking the
> rules already.
If it's a Phylactery, it is by definition something tied to your arm or
head. That's what one is. What else can you muck about with because it's
culture specific? Perhaps you can eat a menorah in your campaign, or go
around hitting people with a mikva? You may as well talk about a shoe that
isn't worn on your foot.
Collin Campbell
> -------
> I doubt it. Gygax knew full well what a phylactery was, and the 1st ed.
MM
> shows the Lich with some sort of ornamental object, which could easily be
a
> decorated box, bound to its head.
> -------
Granted, of course I don't force Liches to wear such silly devices in my
games,
they're pretty much free to do as they wish.
So what now? Boycott WoTC until they correct the blatant error? ;)
> If it's a Phylactery, it is by definition something tied to your arm or
> head. That's what one is. What else can you muck about with because it's
> culture specific? Perhaps you can eat a menorah in your campaign, or go
> around hitting people with a mikva? You may as well talk about a shoe
that
> isn't worn on your foot.
I have several pairs of shoes that aren't worn on my feet. About 3
pairs of shoes
are hidden well away in the depths of my bedroom closet. Only the Gods
know
what kind of creatures are protecting them too.
As for a menorah or a mikva. Dunno. All I know is that Wacko Warner
put it best...
a bear claw in russia is a hungry mans dish. ;)
Collin Campbell
$0.02
Varsil Savai
wrote:
>
>Collin Campbell <col...@invidicus.net> wrote in message
>news:01bff0f5$e2e9f360$7c212104@satanas...
>> > >In fact, it's a phylactery, so it's fastened to his *&*!$#?! head!
>> >
>> > What's the point of having a phylactery if you have to have it on your
>> > person? Seems rather redundant.
>> > jbs
>>
>>
>> I'd wager that "Phylactery" was just a pretty name chosen at 3am by a
>> couple of guys
>> who needed to get a product to market.
>-------
>I doubt it. Gygax knew full well what a phylactery was, and the 1st ed. MM
>shows the Lich with some sort of ornamental object, which could easily be a
>decorated box, bound to its head.
>-------
It shows a decorative object, which could easily be a whole ream of
things, and is most likely a circlet.
>> For the love of the game I don't think it's worth arguing over what the
>> dictionary says.
>> Besides that, you are playing a fantasy game that is set on a fantasy
>world
>> where Jews
>> and their rules of where to place anything exists. Even if it did, I
>doubt
>> seriously that a
>> Lich would follow them, after all I'm sure they're used to breaking the
>> rules already.
>--------
>If it's a Phylactery, it is by definition something tied to your arm or
>head. That's what one is. What else can you muck about with because it's
>culture specific? Perhaps you can eat a menorah in your campaign, or go
>around hitting people with a mikva? You may as well talk about a shoe that
>isn't worn on your foot.
>
Only if it's a definition #1 of 3 phylactery. There's two definitions
that have nothing to do with Judaism, and make a lot more sense given
how the phylacteries of liches have been portrayed. Anally insisting
that one particular meaning is how it is used all the time ("If it's a
Phylactery, it is by definition something tied to your arm or head.
That's what one is"), then you're being a fool. And you must have
trouble dealing with society...
Question, when you hear "The boxers just stepped into the ring", do
you see them in A) a small fighting arena, or B) standing in some
giant wedding band? Cause your argument above is basically saying
that not only must it be B, but that the rest of us all have to think
B as well...
As for shoes that don't go on your foot, I can name several.
From my dictionary:
Def 4: "A ferrule or the like, as of iron, for protecting the end of
a staff, pole, etc."
Def 5: "The part of a brake mechanism fitting into the drum and
extended outwardly to apply the friction lining to the drum rim for
stopping or slowing a car, truck, etc."
Non-footwear definitions of 'shoe' are from 4-19 (and 2 is an object
which is shoe-like, and 3 is a horseshoe).
So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
charm, or safeguard".
jbs
wrote:
>I doubt it. Gygax knew full well what a phylactery was, and the 1st ed. MM
>shows the Lich with some sort of ornamental object, which could easily be a
>decorated box, bound to its head.
And obviously that was his phylactery?
Are you sure the artist was Jewish?
jbs
Jon Inge Teigland
news:964035762.26902.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> If it's a Phylactery, it is by definition something tied to your arm or
> head. That's what one is. What else can you muck about with because it's
> culture specific? Perhaps you can eat a menorah in your campaign, or go
> around hitting people with a mikva? You may as well talk about a shoe that
> isn't worn on your foot.
>
Phy-lac-ter-y, n., pl. -ter-ies.
1. Judaism. either of two small, black, leather cubes having leather straps
and containing a piece of parchment inscribed with the verses 4-9, 11, and
13-21 of Deut. 6 and 1-16 of Ex. 13, one cube worn strapped to the left arm
and the other to the forehead during the morning religious service on days
other than the Sabbath and holy days by orthodox and COnservative Jewish
males of 13 years of age or older.
2. (in the early Christian church) a receptacle containing a holy relic.
3. a reminder.
4. an amulet, charm, or safeguard.
It is quite clear that you are supporting the first definition.
It is equally clear that the second and fourth definitions would work nicely
with the Liches phylacteries in AD&D.
Jon Inge Teigland
PJS
Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39761bb...@24.2.10.79...
> So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
> is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
> charm, or safeguard".
------
PJS
Jon Inge Teigland <joni...@online.no> wrote in message
news:01rd5.16828$MS3.3...@news1.online.no...
But I support the first one because it's the original one; the others are
metaphorical derivations of the first. We ought to remember Gygax was a
pedantic scholar who would have thought along the same lines and 1st ed.
Liches would have worn their phylacteries. Incidentally, my edition of the
same dictionary says "SOMETHING WORN AS an amulet, charm or safeguard." and
has a fifth definition which is in mediaeval art more or less what we'd
called a "speech bubble" today. The OED's definitions are all but identical;
again it says "worn on the person" with regard to the object. The bottom
line is that no definition of the word "phylactery" (which is applicable
here) strays far enough from the original to allow a lich to hide it
somewhere.
Varsil Savai
wrote:
Safeguard doesn't specify _anything_ about not being able to stash it.
And, from the MM: "Since the lich will always take great care to see
to it that its phylactery is well hidden and protected..." I'd think
_that_ would tell you that it doesn't have to be worn. Or does this
just say that all liches wear hats? *smirk*
As for your claim that you think like EGG... *smirk*
Varsil Savai
wrote:
>
>Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39761bb...@24.2.10.79...
>> So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
>> is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
>> charm, or safeguard".
>------
>For f***'s sake even if it's an amulet YOU STILL HAVE TO WEAR IT!
>
I don't suppose you noticed the _or_. I think the 'safeguard' def. is
most appropriate. Or are you still having trouble with the 'multiple
options' concept of word meaning?
PJS
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:23:03 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:39761bb...@24.2.10.79...
> >> So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
> >> is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
> >> charm, or safeguard".
> >------
> >For f***'s sake even if it's an amulet YOU STILL HAVE TO WEAR IT!
> >
> I don't suppose you noticed the _or_. I think the 'safeguard' def. is
> most appropriate. Or are you still having trouble with the 'multiple
> options' concept of word meaning?
-------
interpreting the definition to mean something you don't wear, after leaving
out part of the definition.
PJS
Once again, I point out that the definition says "Something worn . . ." and
what I am talking about is the 1st edition Lich. Because the 2nd edition
writers didn't know what a phylactery was any better than you do and thought
"Hey, it would be kewl if Liches were even tougher and could hide the
container for their souls!" they changed the rules . . . sometimes I wonder
if D&D rules are in fact being written by Liches, because every change seems
to make them tougher - first they don't need to wear their phylacteries,
then they can possess people from them, what next?
Varsil Savai
wrote:
>
>Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39775da...@24.2.10.79...
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:23:03 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:39761bb...@24.2.10.79...
>> >> So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
>> >> is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
>> >> charm, or safeguard".
>> >------
>> >For f***'s sake even if it's an amulet YOU STILL HAVE TO WEAR IT!
>> >
>> I don't suppose you noticed the _or_. I think the 'safeguard' def. is
>> most appropriate. Or are you still having trouble with the 'multiple
>> options' concept of word meaning?
>-------
>Your fixating on the tenuous possibility that there might be way of
>interpreting the definition to mean something you don't wear, after leaving
>out part of the definition.
>
What _tenous_ possibility? IT SAYS THAT LICHES HIDE THEIR
PHYLACTERIES. That (at least to me) says that they're not wearing
them. And when a definition says A, B, or C, and C fits best, I don't
think I'm being unreasonable when I think just maybe it's C.
From my MM:
"...to ensure the final destruction of a lich, its body must be wholly
annihilated and its phylactery must be sought out and destroyed in
some manner. Since the lich will always take great care to see to it
that its phylactery is well hidden and protected this can be an
undertaking fully as daunting as the defeat of the lich in its
physical form."
Somehow I don't think they're hinting at the perilous and extremely
difficult Quest to Lift The Hat off The Dead Guy.
Varsil Savai
wrote:
>
>Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. I don't have a 1st ed MM, so I may
have to yield that liches there may be as you say they are. They
fixed that in 2e :).
And as for it being, well, DM-munchkin, as you claim... I don't
really see the point of a safeguard if you go and strap it to a body
that is about to be "utterly annihilated" (Yeah, this quote is from
2e, but I'm betting the same idea exists in 1e).
Also, consider this:
What happens if the lich takes it off? Does he die? And, if he
doesn't, what's to stop him from taking it off and stashing it
somewhere handy? :)
And for the record, I agree with you on the magic jarring thing :).
Peter Seebach
Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Somehow I don't think they're hinting at the perilous and extremely
>difficult Quest to Lift The Hat off The Dead Guy.
I like this so much I may just find some excuse to have a "quest to lift the
hat off the dead guy" in my campaign.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
PJS
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:15:59 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>> >news:39775da...@24.2.10.79...
> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:23:03 +0100, "PJS" <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>
> >> >> So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
> >> >> is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
> >> >> charm, or safeguard".
> >> >------
> >> >For f***'s sake even if it's an amulet YOU STILL HAVE TO WEAR IT!
> >> >
> >> I don't suppose you noticed the _or_. I think the 'safeguard' def. is
> >> most appropriate. Or are you still having trouble with the 'multiple
> >> options' concept of word meaning?
> >-------
> >Your fixating on the tenuous possibility that there might be way of
> >interpreting the definition to mean something you don't wear, after
leaving
> >out part of the definition.
> >
> What _tenous_ possibility? IT SAYS THAT LICHES HIDE THEIR
> PHYLACTERIES. That (at least to me) says that they're not wearing
> them. And when a definition says A, B, or C, and C fits best, I don't
> think I'm being unreasonable when I think just maybe it's C.
In the second edition MM it does indeed, but I'm arguing that this is
because the writers of 1st edition knew what a phylactery was whereas the
writers of 2nd edition either didn't know or disregarded it in their
determination to make Liches more and more powerful.
> From my MM:
>
> "...to ensure the final destruction of a lich, its body must be wholly
> annihilated and its phylactery must be sought out and destroyed in
> some manner. Since the lich will always take great care to see to it
> that its phylactery is well hidden and protected this can be an
> undertaking fully as daunting as the defeat of the lich in its
> physical form."
>
> Somehow I don't think they're hinting at the perilous and extremely
> difficult Quest to Lift The Hat off The Dead Guy.
--------
Hehe.
PJS
No, because the phylactery didn't matter. It didn't have any importance at
all for the 1st ed. Lich except that presumably he had to wear it to retain
his undead status. It didn't store his soul, or anything, it was just a
magical "Phylactery of Being a Lich". The 1st ed. monster was just destroyed
like any other "+1 or better to hit" undead such as a Wraith.
--------
> Also, consider this:
>
> What happens if the lich takes it off? Does he die? And, if he
> doesn't, what's to stop him from taking it off and stashing it
> somewhere handy? :)
It wasn't discussed. All the 1st ed. MM says is, 'it retains this [undead]
status by certain enchantments, conjurations and a phylactery'. Presumably
if it threw the phylactery away it would begin to weaken and die, probably
quite slowly since there's no hint that seizing or smashing it kills the
Lich.
Joseph Michael Bay
>So don't be a fool, it's obviously _nothing_ to do with Judaism, and
>is almost certainly definition #4 from my dictionary, "an amulet,
>charm, or safeguard".
Besides, it's a Greek-derived word, which should suggest prima facie
that it's not entirely culture-specific. Its root is "to guard", and
could refer to a protective amulet as well as a holder for text.
But it should be some kind of amulet or similar jewelry, not a dungeon.
That's just silly.
--
Joe Bay Stanford University Cancer Biology
I M O N I T O R E D T H E S E S A N T A S
Joseph Michael Bay
>In article <397971cb...@24.2.10.79>,
>Varsil Savai <varsil#$%@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Somehow I don't think they're hinting at the perilous and extremely
>>difficult Quest to Lift The Hat off The Dead Guy.
>I like this so much I may just find some excuse to have a "quest to lift the
>hat off the dead guy" in my campaign.
It might mean you're the Rightful Heir to the Newspaper Office or something.